Evolutionary biology tries to reconstruct the scenarios that led to the modification of species. Molecular biology studies genetic mutations and their consequences on current organisms.
Molecularists criticize evolutionists for telling “beautiful stories” without providing evidence, while the latter criticize the former for reducing life to simplistic codings without taking into account the complexity of environmental constraints.
Geneticists would have their heads full, full of evidence, while evolutionists would have their heads full, full of hypotheses.
Although the two areas complement each other admirably, evolution remains unloved ever since Darwin dared to dismantle God’s creations. Preference goes to genetics, which shows the divine perfection of the architecture of life.
As for the creationists, they dispense with theories and proofs. As long as their dogmatism did not impede the progress of science and its teaching, they could be allowed to play in the yard. Alas, through some unknown means, they are making a strong comeback in the ministries of several OECD countries, and not the least. Is it for this reason that certain publications are falsely trumpeted by the media?
The most popular and strongest of the evolutionary theories is that of lactase persistence among cattle farmers. A recent study has just shown that this tolerance to milk has also been favored by the famines and epidemics that have struck humanity. This study has been presented as contradictory, whereas it simply confirms the better survival of populations who have had milk as a nutritional substitute.
When it was estimated that the number of cells in our microbiota was a hundred times greater than that of our own cells, our divine genetics suffered. Then a model challenged this ratio by reducing it to ten; it immediately benefited from a wide media coverage. Yet that doesn’t change the fact that our microbiotic genes shape us more than those divinely assigned to us!
Another very popular evolutionary theory is the so-called “grandmother effect” to explain the conundrum of menopause. The grandmothers, freed from procreation, would have allowed a better survival of their offspring by assisting the mothers, or even by replacing them in the event of mortality linked to childbirth. Each time a hypothesis comes to contradict this “beautiful” story, it is guaranteed to be broadcast in prime time. The funniest one suggested that men’s preference for younger women led to an accumulation of genetic mutations detrimental to the fertility of older women.
Needless to explain why God created men with a marked preference for younger women; it suffices to make a dogma of it.